THE 2016 ELECTION CYCLE HAS ALREADY begun and early on it took the turn of one authoritarian progressive versus another authoritarian progressive, with the only major noteworthy distinction being one is a Republican and the other a Democrat. Is that even a big distinction anymore?

With the populist fervor surrounding the Donald–while the “extremist” Rand Paul was practically ignored, by all but his few supporters on Fox Business–it looks like it is becoming more and more immaterial. Maybe an update from the “Party Of the People” and the “Grand Old Party” is in order; how about, for the Democrats the “Party Of the Progressives” and the Republicans, the “Grand Old Populists”. This has not been a recent change in standards by any means, but not all the candidates changes in policy platforms have been either. Most of Trump’s have been, yes, but many of Hillary’s started in college. In college she fell in with her hippie, progressive, popular kids crowd and meet a man who would change her life, George Soros. Soros is a sick a demented human being who enjoys playing God with nation’s economies, simply because he can and has done so many times.

He put the U.S. in his crosshairs when President Bush the Second was in office. He feared the “reckless Texas cowboy” would bring the world endless wars… Ok, so he got that one right. That doesn’t give him the right or moral authority to intervene, especially when his new puppet politician is going around criticizing the Republican candidates for the same thing. Hillary gets money from many different big corporate donors, as did Obama, Soros being a huge donor to both campaigns. They also get lots of money from unions and environmentalists groups, and the (gasp!) Koch brothers, who donate to both Republican and Democrat campaigns. To the credit of Bernie Sanders, at least he is honest on not receiving corporate donors.

This is not the only common cause for Trump and Clinton, neither are exactly tolerant of free speech. The Donald wanting to revive the Sedition Acts–a set of laws that journalists could be jailed for being critical of politicians or their policies–an idea that Hillary would no doubt support for the Democrat elite. So we should take these candidates at their word, they won’t railroad the general public with a tsunami of new pointless legislature? Yeah, that has worked well in the past. Hillary has her own set of censorship laws to answer for as well, going after “gangsta rap” and trying to give the government the right to decide the content of what is on the air. She pushed for laws to give government entities carte blanc disclosure over the ratings system on TV programs and movies. The past showed how well that worked, when the FCC was in charge of the enforcement of such guidelines for radio, it nearly killed the industry! Because such guidelines have never been used to protect people from objectionable content, just objectionable ideas, both that are open to interpretation. Making any laws of this kind dangerous.

Besides a labyrinth of confusion, trying to find out where these two candidates stand on the issues, comes their propensity to drift with the “winds of change” of populist opinions. Most notable, Clinton’s support of gay marriage and Trump’s pro-life stance. Trump’s odd defensive of funding Planned Parenthood and Eminent Domain laws, demonstrates a clear sense of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the Constitution in both the parties. With no evidence to suggest that Clinton would be any different, it looks like the most wasted vote would be for one of the duopoly candidates.

If you Liked this article get my new book, VICTIMS OF WHITE MALE: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society, or any of my other books at Barnes and Noble.com, Amazon.com, or other online stores.